Bingo. BTW, these broad goals are not incompatible with the expressed aspirations of progressives either. The only thing we have to lose is our distrust.

This may be an "interesting" point, however it is misrepresenting the consequences of libertarian policy so one might question its validity.

Before you can argue that conservative values will solve the problems of libertarian policy you have to demonstrate that the libertarian policy will make things worse than they are now.

Prohibition did not prevent people from getting alchol but it did create more violent crime. So it's not clear that decriminalizing drugs and freeing the airwaves will result in more crime. How did new immigrants learn patriotism in the past when immigration was more open than it is now? If immigration were more open then criminal immigrants would be vastly out numbered by people who want to come to America because they share its values of freedom and opportunity. If the only way to come to the US is to break the law then only law breakers will come here. The net consequences to society of libertarian policy may be positive, and may not need coincidental correction from conservative values.

>>This raises legitimate concerns that society would face increased challenges in sustaining itself.

Well, "society" can, and hopefully would, go to hell. That said, yes families, religious institutions, and charitable organizations would definitely have a bigger role in solving post-State problems.

This is a very iffy issue for me, and I change sides every now and then, and depending on which drug we're discussing.

One thing I can make abundantly clear is that the criminilization of pot is ridiculous, for the following reasons:

1. You can't overdose
2. Has a lower crime/burglary relationsihp than alcohol
3. Is not addidictive (except to a small portion of the population)
4. A significant portion of the inmates from the federal prison system are charged with primarily marijauna crimes.... which costs the tax payers billions each year.

Of course the two are compatible. Libertarians want to diminish the impact of government on civil society: social conservatives want to strengthen civil society from the other direction. That's why the Reagan Coalition was so wildly successful. Small-l libertarians and social conservatives have enough in common to justify working together. Lately, though, the cracks are showing, because the former (along with the economic conservatives) think they've been getting shafted by the "country club" contingent of the party, aka Lott and Co.

That's my read, anyway.

I think it has become impossible to make the argument that whatever ill effects would arise from legalizing drugs could possibly be as negative for American interests as this drug war is right now. The breakdown of the inner cities (particularly black nieghborhoods), huge prison population resulting in violent criminals doing less and less time proportunately, the billions spent on enforcement, not to mention what it has done to Columbia, Mexico, and lets not forget Afghanistan. Not to mention no-knock raids, cops with dogs and drawn guns raiding schools, and the corruption that filters into our police departments.

There is a strong argument that treatment and prevention are at least as effective as prohibition (probably moreso), yet the funding would never lead you to that conclusion. The only reason this drug war continues is inertia, the money involved, and the need of some in society to feel in control of their fellows. The latter I think is a shrinking proportion, so things should get interesting.

I'm a registered independent and libertarian, but I don't associate with the libertarian party. I'm more in line with the Reagan/Newt line of libertarians. I don't especially care for either party, but the pubs have done an okay job so far. Part of this is because the religious family values they are talking about are based in free will and free choice. I have less trust for the dems -- probably because so many of them want to take property rights away for various causes: endangered animals, global warming, rampant foot fungus, whatever. It's not that I don't see these as problems, I am just concerned that many of these remedies are worse than the problems they are fixing.

To echo Bezuhov (#1), I also in general don't think most normal people are that far apart. The two parties try to push us apart every chance they get, but nobody wants dirty air and nobody wants government running their lives. We've had enough of the nanny state, thank you very much.

As far as drug legalization, I am in favor of allowing people to hurt themselves, whether that is with firearms, airplanes, explosives, foul language, or illegal substances. I understand that this causes suffering. But to expect total safety in life is to live in a prison. I'll pass on that. Like most others, I draw the line where that behavior has the demonstrated ability to harm others. And I'm not talking about the drug addict who steals from the family piggy bank, I'm talking about building a bomb in the basement of your apartment building. If you want to go out into the desert and build bombs and blow yourself up, have at it. I think as the population density increases, things that were okay in isolation become more and more dangerous. For that reason, I am more in favor of gun control in the housing projects than I am in suburban America (where I favor liberal concealed carry permits)

Speaking of the Country Club wing, Bloomberg was quoted the other day trying to make a point about illegal immigrants. His convincing approach?

"You and I are beneficiaries of these jobs," Bloomberg told his WABC-AM radio co-host, John Gambling. "You and I both play golf; who takes care of the greens and the fairways in your golf course?"

That thudding sound was my jaw hitting the floor. Followed by my head pounding on my desk. Nice reminder of why I never had much time for Country Club Republicans in the first place. Taking the party out of their hands was one of the best things the original neocons did.

As for Marijuana, I'm totally on side with alchemist here. Unlike him, I can even claim to have voted once for the Marijuana Party in a federal election. (The Rhinos are sadly no more, and the MP ran a candidate in my riding named... "Andrew Potter." No way I could resist the opportunity.) Many other drugs, I'm more of a "throw the book at them" kind of guy because they have the effect of crippling free volition.

You forget the other part of the social conservatives' complaints: that society is NOT moving in a more conservative direction, but rather, those family values are either dying out or being actively attacked by social liberals, depending on who you ask. Church attendance is down, divorce rates are up, single parenthood and teen pregnancies (which break the traditional family mold) are on the rise... pick your stat, but the general consensus is that society is slowly weeding out those values which could offset the potential consequences of decriminalization etc which libertarians favor. Do you think the "going to Hell in a handbasket" crowd will agree that letting the airwaves go unregulated will somehow encourage more decent, sober, family oriented behavior?

Unless you've got some as yet unheard argument that a move towards libertarianism would somehow encourage and preserve socially conservative values--and if you have such a case to be made, I'd be amazed--I don't think you can depend on those values in the world some libertarians envision. (Do a survey of libertarians and find out how many describe themselves as "fiscally conservative" but "socially libertarian", like the author of the article, and how many describe themselves as "socially conservative"; there's a reason you'll find very few socially conservative libertarians, though moderates are more common.)

The coalition of kooks that make up the libertarian-social conservative axis of weasels is possible only because they are all batshit crazy.

How else can you explain people who willingly pay over 25% of their income taxes for interest on debt increasingly borrowed from the communist chinese?

That is over $325 billion dollars in the last year alone. That this coalition of crazies willingly allow this to compound and grow is what is known in financial circles as 'nuts'.

But don't worry. The cold-eyed bankers who lend the money will continue to bleed you as long as you want to be bled.

Libertarians argue that giving the state power is always a Faustian bargain - one that will be turned against you in time. Especially given the fact that the nature of state power attracts leftists to it who are hostile to both libertarians and social conservatives... and have no hesitation in using state power to attack them.

The argument therefore goes: what y'all really need is for the state to stop getting in your way as you attempt to fix your own communities. That requires introducing more freedom to the present structure, and more choice, so you expand your own circle of influence. Which issues become the focus of that thrust are negotiable (education creates good common ground for different reasons), but the basic thrust is actually a pretty compelling argument.

The challenge is managing the fact that libertarians may gravitate to freedom issues that aren't a good starting point with social conservatives (legalization is a good example), while social conservatives gravitate toward using state power in ways that go over poorly with libertarians. Science is also something of a flash point - largely because neither side does well at understanding how the fusion of science and religious values has forged our culture, and so neither side sees the other's important contribution.

Because of those friction points, working together is always difficult. Because they have in effect a common enemy, and also because each side is learning from experience that the other has a point (libertarian Crunchy Cons embracing "The Permanent Things," social conservatives beginning to understand the poison pill of the state), uneasy cooperation is likely to continue.

I embrace libertarian ideals but the Party is full of nuts and isnt viable for now. When you get into an argument over why we need local fire departments, you know you are too far afield to achieve anything useful with these guys.

Ditto to what Mark said. The fundamentals of libertarianism are sound, the wackos that practice it are nuts.

People forget (or don't know) that when the USA was founded, it was far less religious than it is today. I think many social conservatives think of the Founding Fathers as coming from some sort of tent revival, but that was hardly the case.

The public was also educated and highly cynical and untrusting of government. The country went for 12 years without a constitution and did just fine. Over time, this distrust has shown to be very wise. Government is getting into every aspect of our lives, from how our toliets flush to how are houses are built. Libertarians still hold that mistrust of mob rule. Both of the other parties seem to have abandoned it -- their logic seems to be "vote for me so I can make laws to take freedoms away from others to make you happy." The current system is getting more and more unsustainable as each election cycle goes by.

You are missing what Libertarians base such ideas on.

Spontaneous Order: this theory is that things if allowed will naturally work itself out. Example in pure Capitalism companies that fail will be eaten and replaced by companies that have better business models or systems. Yet when outside forces Government get involved for whatever “feel good reason” the result is propped up companies that still have the same failed systems and in the long run actually damage more the workers and industry than if allowed to work itself out. At the same time the successful upstarts are retarded by such regulations.

The central government cannot fix or help anything because every situation is different and the government especially Fed just cannot adapt quickly enough or even understand. The more the government props up failed companies or failed Citizens the more such problems there will be. The less successful companies and civilians will be allowed to supplant and be that example to the rest of the upstarts. This increases and multiplies the problem instead of ending it.

The Legalize Drugs Issue. I don’t know were you live but drugs are everywhere legal or not (I would bet $50 that you could drop me off in any city in the US and give a week and I could find any drug you want, it really is that rampant). Legalization would allow it to be taxed and take the money out of the game. By that I mean when Walgreen’s is making all the money the ghetto bling bling wont have the draw it does now to huge numbers of youth who mistakenly see dope game as a better out than say hard work and School. The huge amounts of money wasted on drug crime (not talking murder, theft, rape ect..) would be saved and room made for the real criminals or drug attics that step over that redline and go criminal.

The reason drug use would actually go down would be simple once legal the only civilians associated with Drugs would be users and they are not very successful in society if not given the safety nets our government loves to give out that only prolong the pain by keeping them from hitting the bottom. In the cowboy days drugs of all stripe were legal and if you notice their was always a dope head in every show were (He was the slob that lived underneath the porch of either the barber shop, jail, or Salon even thou he never entered the Salon wonder why, was he spending his gold coin for selling out at the Poppy tent Hmmm).

The Immigration policy I agree is stupid for many reasons. You cant just let anyone in unchecked for security reasons and if foreigners are allowed to come and become mini straws stuck into our side sucking blood back to their homeland it wont be long and we will be either dried up or equally short blood.

The problem with immigration is that if we would end our welfare safety net those are the people who should be working those “undesirable” jobs. Why, well those welfare people are failures by their past choices they should be allowed to suffer at the bottom as a example to their children and the next generation as to why you must make the proper choices like Just Say No to Drugs.

What pisses me off about this whole legalize the illegal argument is this simple tenant. What will happen once those illegal are legal? They wont just do what our current failures in society do and jump on the US Fed titty? I mean why does illegal work for less than legal or do those “undesirable jobs” in the first place is it maybe because they must have a job or they die? Once they can achieve the same standard of life sitting at home (or working for cash on the side) but having their Food, Shelter paid for by the Federal Welfare.

The catch 22 with Libertarianism is that like the legalize drugs if you legalize but don’t end welfare safety nets you just get an exploding welfare system. It’s an all or nothing because for “spontaneous order” to work you must allow the freedom to run its course and yes that freedom absolutely involves the freedom to FAIL and suffer.

As often is the case, the problem isn't in the goal but in the prescription for reaching the goal.

Unbeliever states as a fact that there are no arguments that less invasive government produces more socially conservative societies. I'm not buying that as being true for a moment, but I'm at work and don't right now have the time to google for counter examples.

On the other hand, I do have time to argue that governments are great at enforcing boundaries (that's about the only thing limited government can do, and I don't think anyone sane argues for unlimited government) and defining what the boundaries are for a "socially conservative" society is a dead-end endeavor.

Is "socially conservative" the same as "classically liberal"? I don't think most people would say so. Is it isomorphic with a Menonite lifestyle? Doubtful; I don't think Pat Buchannon wants to drive a horse to the TV studio.

I see a lot of Hasidim in my neighborhood who probably think of themselves as "socially conservative" but I don't think they want to legislate my headware or lack thereof, and I'd be ticked off if they did.

(BTW, one of the most egregious affronts to religion in the West in the past few years, IMHO, was the French ban on headscarves for Islamic schoolgirls. Talk about in -- or at least above -- your-face disrespect of religious belief. But that was done in the desire to enforce social cohesion. Good move, Jaques.)

Anyway, cohesion within a community can be natural, or it can be coerced. Government is by nature a coercive force. (Question: without the threat of dire consequences, would any reader here pay the taxes the government says they owe?) Forced cohesion tends to fracture at any opportunity. Cohesion springing from shared values tends to persist, even in the face of cultural challenges. (Hence, Mennonites in Pennsylvania, Mormons in Utah, Hassids in Brooklyn, etc.) One way has a poor track record. The other seems to work.

Where this Libertarian parts ways with the social conservatives is at the point where they start trying to use government to enforce societal cohesion. Not only does it offend me, I think it is at root counterproductive to the maintenance of a larger society where internal communites provide healthy environments for community members. In other words, the impulse to codify morality is not only evil, it is also stupid.

Okay, done now.

I don't think tradeoffs between different bases of support in society are important at the moment. Rather, the Republican Party is failing out of basic incompetence in the federal legislature, slightly exacerbated of late by a weak showing from George W. Bush.

Neither being a social conservative nor a libertarian requires that hundreds of millions of dollars be spent on projects such as a bridge to nowhere. The stink of waste is a self made problem for the professional politicians.

Modest reforms - with a touch of privatisation - to keep Social Security solvent did not inherently offend either libertarians or social conservatives. George W. Bush was not deficient in announcing as early as the day of his re-election that he wanted this, and in continuing to express himself (as well as he can) in favour of the needed legislation. But not enough Republican legislators fought for the needed reform, so it failed. When Social Security runs into grave difficulties, as it will, people will ask why those in a majority did not make modest reforms in good time so that harsh reforms would not be needed later, and Republicans will have no satisfactory answer. (Well, George W. Bush will have an answer. But the main problem is with Republican legislators.)

Michelle Malkin has been making damning and unanswerable criticisms of not only Republican negligence on border control (which might be a tradeoff issue) but the basic quality of George W. Bush's appointments. I know social conservatives object strongly to the appointment of unqualified or poorly qualified cronies to vital jobs, and if it was not so we would not have the highly qualified, highly competent John Roberts and Samuel Alito on the Supreme Court. So, do incompetent cronies have to be given important jobs as a sop to libertarian sentiment? I don't think so.

Hugh Hewitt has said: "Bottom line: It is hard to see how the GOP is not like the Titanic, except it is aiming for the iceberg." (link)

And with good reason: (link) Fund: "The conservatives had forced budget reform, with earmarks, into the budget, but at the last minute, Appropriations Chairman Jerry Lewis said to all of his committee members, you want to stay on this committee, you want projects, you will vote against the budget resolution. This is more serious than you can imagine, because when the Republicans lose control of the House mechanism, it gives people reminders that the Democrats had the same control problems in 1994. They looked chaotic, they looked incompetent as well as unprincipled, and that's what led to a historic defeat."

This is not a split, unless it's a split between un-led, out-of-touch federal representatives and unhappy Republican voters of all persuasions.

The Republican coalition is an inherently good one. Any time the politicians care to get their act together, they can deliver tolerable performance for all parts of it at once. Legislative competence would almost automatically provide all the "common ground" needed.

"In other words, the impulse to codify morality is not only evil, it is also stupid.

"Okay, done now."

Okay, maybe not.

After writing that, I realised that every major religion has a text (or texts) that explicitly codify morality.

The better phrasing would have been "legislate morality". That's closer to what I meant.

I leave open the question of whether every major religion is stupid, and/or possibly evil.

#17: Ah, yes, the finest morality that K Street can provide... :)

Joe,

You havent been reading my articles. There is drug habituation which can be cured by detox. Then there is "addiction". Or chronic use. We have no cure for that except time. And sometimes a lifetime is not enough time.

1st question. If you use insulin chronically to make up for adrenal deficiency are you an insulin addict?

2nd question - if you use heroin to make up for an endorphin deficiency in the brain are you a heroin addict?

Now explain why the two situations are different.

In any case you don't catch "addiction" from drugs. You get it from trauma combined with genetic susceptability.

Addiction is a phantom menace:

http://powerandcontrol.blogsp*t.com/2005/11/is-addiction-real.html

And here is one on annamide deficiency:

http://powerandcontrol.bl*gspot.com/2006/04/ptsd-and-endocannabinoid-system.html

BTW Dr Mechoulim from Israel in the above piece has come to the same conclusion I have. Trauma can lead to deficiencies such as cannbinoid deficiencies in the above case.

And here is why some folks have an endorphin deficiency:

http://powerandcontrol.blogsp*t.com/2004/09/heroin.html

The common understanding of "addiction" is as much based in reality as the phlogiston theory of combustion and heat flow.

Every year new reports come out which fit the pattern I first discovered four years ago. There are no reports coming out which show that drugs cause addiction.

Even our latest drug czar says it is 50% genetic and 50% "environmental". Just exactly what they mean by "environmental" they don't say. I suppose they have to hold something back lest folks demand an end to prohibition.

And further. Ending prohibition will not end the drug problem or the craving for drugs. It will put an end to the narco criminals and narco governments and the narcos continually testing our borders. So have estimated that as much as 85% of the crimes comitted in America are prohibition related - i.e. such crimes (stealing to pay the high price of drugs for instance - turf wars etc.) would be greatly reduced or eliminated if we ended prohibition.

It is interesting that the most ardent legalizers commenting here have aproximately zero appriciation of the latest research into the nature of addiction.

Drugs are a symptom not a cause. Just as insulin use is a symptom of poor adrenal function not a cause of it.

BTW pot may help out those with poor adrenal function:

http://powerandcontrol.blogsp*t.com/2005/10/pot-treats-diabetes.html

What a doctor and drug councilor have to say about my thesis:
http://powerandcontrol.blogsp*t.com/2005/10/well-known-secret.html

M Simon.

That was a great post. Most folks do not understand the nature of addiction.

I think most folks here agree mostly. (Is this a watershed moment for WOC?!?) I believe Joe is simply saying that the trauma and chemical changes in the brain cause the person to act in an extremely asocial manner, including (sometimes) doing the most inhumane and barbarous acts.

If you think your fellow man has too much control over his own life and could hurt himself -- educate him. Don't make him a criminal.

Just like the GOP might be creating an entire Hispanic political movement and giving it all wrapped up in a bow to the Dems, making drug use illegal feels great to the base and causes more problems than it solves.

As a side note, I think drug addicts are so heinous to people (the religious right especially) because they remind us all of how close to animals we really are. It's a very ugly and humiliating sight to see and really understand a junkie. It's much easier to elevate yourself morally than readily admit how close to that condition you really are. As M said, a little trauma in the right places, and you're exactly the same person.

There's a risk-reward judgement that society makes, of course. I wouldn't advocate selling heroin on the shelves at Wal-Mart to minors, but I don't have a problem with selling pot like we do tobacco. So I don't think you have to be "crazy libertarian" (advocating the abandonment of fire stations!) to be a "practical libertarian." In fact, I think if you really questioned most intelligent folks, after you cut through all of the two-party nonsense they've been taught, they would consider themselves practical libertarians. Sure there would be 15-20 percent on either extreme, but most folks support having a free and liberal society -- at least deep down inside.

The libertarian/social-conservative conflict may be about to heat up once again, this time over a certain piece of legislation that I won't mention by name in this post, lest it get rejected by the Almighty WoC Spam Filter™.

Actually I'm starting to think this may end up blowing up in the GOP's face even more than the immigration issue, not just because of the intraparty split but the sheer numbers involved. There are "only" 11 million illegal immigrants, but several times that many who at least casually partake in the activity that would be shut down by the legislation in question - and unlike the illegal immigrants, these people can actually vote.

"Virginia Republican Congressman Bob Goodlatte?"

Hey. I voted for that yahoo!

WTF? Has he lost his mind?

He seemed like such a reasonable guy when he first got elected. He looked like an accountant or something -- just the guy you wanted looking after the purse-strings.

He was also in favor of term limits. Now it seems like he is making a really good case for them by his actions.

Most interesting to me is that the head of the NIDA is closer to my way of thinking that is the position on addiction of most anti-prohibitionists (WoC folks excepted).

It is starting to change.

General knowledge of the nature of addiction will end prohibition. Because, drugs do not cause addiction.

Most interesting to me is that the head of the NIDA is closer to my way of thinking than is the position on addiction of most anti-prohibitionists (WoC folks excepted).

Joshua, in response to the anti-poker legislation, I feel I must quote my favorite cartoon character of all time:

"Of course, you know this means war."

Scwew the GOP.